Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/06/23
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]> >Almost any chemical, no matter how toxic you wish to make it sound, can >be managed with today's technology without creating the environmental >nightmares you wish to conjure up. I seriously doubt that there is >anything any worse in the Kodachrome scenario than what goes into the >manufacture of automobiles and the petroleum products that they need to >run. Do you wish to let our petroleum based transportation die also? Although this is true, the industries which you mention are using these hazardous chemicals out of necessity, not out of an appreciation out of aesthetics. That is not the case with Kodakchrome, obviously. Although the film has wonderful qualities which have only begun to be rivalled in the recent generations of slide films, from a technical standpoint it does not blow competitors away as in the past. Yet, it is rather common to use rather environmentally unfriendly chemicals in photography. Even B&W processes are rather unhealthy, with sepia toners containing ferricyanide compounds themselves. So one might say that if the thought of your hobby doing harm to the environment makes you lose sleep at night, you should just take the plunge for a digital camera back and avoid the issue altogether. Given Kodak's renewed committment to Kodakchrome, however, it seems highly likely that they have anticipated these problems and are dealing with them through safe disposal and/or recycling programs.